In a newspaper article that appeared earlier last week in Business Report, a certain Patrick Bond, a professor of political economy at the University of Witwatersrand, wrote boldly that South Africa should undo Nelson Mandela’s economic ideals.
This was preceded much earlier by Julius Malema, the firebrand commander-in-chief of the Economic Freedom Fighters. Addressing a mainly student audience at the UK’s prestigious Oxford University on November 25, Malema poignantly pointed out that Mandela sold out and compromised the fundamental principles captured in the Freedom Charter.
This was after he separated from former wife Winnie and went to stay with some white males who own South Africa economically, according to Malema.
I was mildly amused that two individuals, one white and the other black from extremely different backgrounds, could find resonance in a common belief that Mandela did South Africa in. And that is economically speaking.
Bond, being an academic, quoted from a variety of sources to strengthen his argument and point of view. These included views espoused by former wife Winnie Mandela and former revolutionary leader and cabinet minister Ronnie Kasrils who declared that Mandela “signed a self-sabotaging Faustian pact with global capital”.
To the uninitiated: a Faustian pact is the legendary deal Faust made with the devil when he traded his soul in exchange for knowledge. In today’s parlance to strike a Faustian pact or bargain is to sacrifice anything to satisfy a limitless desire for knowledge or power. That is a serious indictment.
Compromises
To further consolidate his point, Bond fired some more brainy ammunition when he also quoted from a certain Alan Hirsh, who used to be in the Presidency and has written a book detailing grounds upon which certain compromises were made during the Mandela presidency era. The man asserted that “those neo-liberal compromises by the new government were done on the basis of concern for economic stability“, but they actually resulted in doing the opposite thereof, the effects of which are still felt today.
He went on to mention a dozen of what he described as the “biggest devils that hobbled Mandela’s economic legacy”. Among them is repayment of $25 billion (R412bn) apartheid era debt and the borrowing of $850 million from the International Monetary fund in December 1993. I will not mention the rest of those “biggest devils” as I do not wish to re-write the said article. Also that is not the basis upon which I contest the contents of his article.
The point I wish to drive home is simple. Why are our subsequent economic woes blamed upon only one man, while we as a country are aware that the ruling ANC believes in the principle of collective leadership? How could Mandela, who had just left jail in 1990, muster the technique of analysis and assessment of such intricate current economic matters without any input from the relevant colleagues of the time?
Where were the Minister of Finance, heads of the Development Bank and other economic clusters in his government? In particular, how could Mandela single-handedly borrow the said $850m in December 1993 when he was not even yet in office? His government only assumed office in April of the following year and he was sworn in on May 10, 1994.
I do not carry any brief for Mandela, but I find some of the criticism levelled against him posthumously as somewhat unfair and tantamount to dancing on his grave. For instance, how can Malema refer to someone who spent 27 years in incarceration for his political ideals a sellout?
Such vilifying characterisation also ignores the fact that when he became president, Mandela and his government were constrained by the agreements that were fashioned at the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa) in 1991. Ours was a negotiated settlement, as our liberation armies did not simply march across the Limpopo River like an invading force only to plant their flag on the top of Thaba Tshwane. At Codesa the negotiators had to navigate a variety of intricate issues, like the new constitution, setting up an interim government, the future of the so-called homelands, the electoral systems and certain pertinent matters like property rights.
Compromises were made by all parties involved. It is easier for people like Bond and Malema and other post-revolutionary activists who enjoy the advantage of hindsight to determine realising that the ANC and other black political parties received a bad deal at Codesa. At the time it looked like a damn good deal and was regarded by most as a miracle outcome.
The challenges we still face in trying to transform South Africa require not only a sound rational mindset, but a responsible and collective, all-embracing approach as well. Throwing historical blame missives like Malema did or behaving like Bond with a licence to kill Mandela, albeit posthumously, is not the way to proceed.
* Letepe Maisela is a management consultant and an author, including of the novel The Empowered Native.
** The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Independent Media.
BUSINESS REPORT